Response to your message

Hi, this is a response to your following message on my TP: "Hello! By any chance, are you the Abdul-Mageed who presented a paper at Wikimainia 2008, titled "Hey, I think perhaps we should: Disciplinary interactions in Wikipedia's articles and talk pages"? If so, is it available online anywhere, or could you make it so? Thanks in advance. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)". Sorry that this is a very late response. The answer is yes and I am finalizing the paper write-up--I was so busy to get it done during last year. I will turn it to some journal and I think it will be published. As soon as this takes place, I will provide a link to it on my blog "[1]". Thank you very much for your interest. Mabdulma (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving policy

I will remove discussions on here that I feel are done with when I feel like it. I will mark such changes with the following summary:'''archiving''' (see history if you want to put stuff back) If you object, or feel that I've removed stuff I shouldn't, feel free to re-add it from the history. If you then comment on it mentioning that I've removed it, and asking me not to, I won't remove it again. If that kind of stuff gets beyond 32k, I'll move it to archive page(s), each of about 32k in size, and put links to them here. JesseW 09:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• User talk:JesseW/good old messages (some barnstars, thanks, etc. mostly from 2005)

The actual page

hello

• image:Coleo1(s).jpg
• image:Dessication.JPG
• image:Dune.JPG
• image:Dune1.JPG
• image:Dune3.JPG
• image:Dune4.JPG
• image:Hymenoptere2(s).JPG
• image:SablePlante.JPG
• image:SandwichDanny.jpg

This is very nice to propose your help ! As you can see, several people have helped me to gather some of the deleted already. As far as my memory goes, I had two versions of the hymenoptere, so I do not mind one being deleted. The sandwich was a present for Danny, so I think he will not miss it now (he saw it when it was relevant as a gift). So thank you very much for your help, but I think I do not need it. But I really appreciate. Anthere 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you by any chance editing the article on Pope Pius XII, or some other article on the Catholic Church in the twentieth century? That is a very difficult editor I was responding to, but I have an RfAr against him. Robert McClenon 11:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to have Wikiversity function as the central Wikimedia project for listing sources and for most discussions of the relative value of sources. Users of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikinews could cooperatively keep lists of useful sources at Wikiversity, preventing duplication of effort at various Wikimedia projects. Each Wikipedia article's talk page could link to the Wikiversity source pages that are relevant. --JWSchmidt 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that idea, but it's a much larger project than the using of direct quotes that I assume you were responding to. Let's do the smaller work first. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was commenting on this effort. I also agree with what you wrote about the utility of direct quotes in references.

Thanks for the kind words on my talk, I think before I just forgot how many nice people there are around here! keep up the good work - Martin 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does get hard to remember sometimes. Feel free to drop a note on my page to chat, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Another! :) Thanks for your help. I've been going through the Cyclopaedia, page by page, adding any interesting entries or pictures, but I'm not being nearly as thorough as I should be. The comprehensive list really is needed. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-15 14:55

I said I knew the wikipedia namespace, so heregoes(without checkin the pages):

1. All naming conventions can be found on subpages of WP:Naming Coventions
2. The variations can probably be found on its discussion page, as is the case with most templates
3. (I don't really know wikipedia stuff outside of wikipedia, and I don't really know much about wikimedia either)
4. Wikipedia:Username

--Urthogie 19:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was in regards to User:JesseW/wikipedia trivia. Good tries; your answers reflect the way things should be, if they were consistent. The actual answers are(I think):

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories
2. Category:Internal_link_templates (which sadly contains many other things as well, and has no descriptions)
3. Gmane.org, specifically http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english ; you can search for other wikipedia lists by name at http://gmane.org/find.php
4. You were right; Wikipedia:Username#Deleting_your_user_account (Although it was only recently moved from a seperate page with a less obvious name).

If you want to help, making the proper links and/or redirects to connect the actual pages to where you thought they were would be great... Thanks for playing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Number 2 I actually got right, because the internal link types are on the template talk for that template.--Urthogie 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I forgot to look there. You are quite right. Someone should add descriptions to that list... JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I got number 1 right as well..Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(aircraft)--Urthogie 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The question was about the naming of categories not of pages... ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats my biggest flaw. Impatience. You got me!--Urthogie 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about Duesentrieb's CatScan, I just continually understimate it. :) Thanks for pointing out that it could do that. So maybe I'll be able to extend the prod tracker to other areas in a week or two.

Yeah, CSD, PROD etc. are less emotional. But every time we have one of these community crises, I feel like taking a break from the Wikipedia: space for a while. And this time is worse because Radiant! of all people left. Most real-life communities don't seem to have perdiodic flare-ups like this, it would be nice if we could clearly identify the root cause and do what we can to limit its recurrence. --Interiot 05:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to point out the powers of CatScan. I'm amazed by it also... Re: flareups; my opinion is a lot of it has to do with our growth - I subscribe to the September that Never Ended theory; we're just getting so many more people, more edits, and so on, and the ratios of serious, sensible people vs those who are not, are getting out of wack, and making the good people go regularly crazy. Also, the impression is spreading that "Wikipedia has lots of power", i.e. that "if we allow one bad action to stand for one second, the world will come and cut off our arms". This makes people tense, and more likely to do supid things. We're a victim of our own success. That's my basic diagnosus. Why do I not leave like Radiant has? Because of the GFDL. It's free content, including (most of) the history. Every time we make one small improvement, it'll be there forever (at least as long as someone wants to keep a copy somewhere). So even if the administration is going gently (or not so gently) crazy, the content is still worth it. Sorry for the rant. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ranting in out of the way places is probably a good thing. Yeah, some flare-ups seem to be caused by a "we must fix this now" mentality on the part of a small number of admins. On the other hand, the alternative doesn't seem that much better. It seems like important policy issues 1) take a very very long time to take effect (eg. the no fair-use images in templates or userspace thing), and 2) even as slow as it is, important policy-making is sometimes clearly wrong, eg. the no-meta-templates thing where Brion finally clarified the technical issues. And both are probably caused by the Eternal September, which causes a poor signal/noise ratio. Hrm, so I guess I agree with you. So now somebody should create a userbox, "This user thinks the Eternal September has come to Wikipedia, but the GFDL makes it all okay". ;) --Interiot 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for userboxes, but I've added that text to my page. I don't really think we're making more bad policy than we ever have. The meta-template one is an aberation, as it's heavily tangled in tehcnical issues - we have more of a chance to get that wrong than usual. (Also, AFAIS, Netaholic has a less than concilatory manner, which doesn't help matters.) Thanks for the discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to help in indexing pages. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "topical index"? is this broader than the Wikipedia namespace? or what?

Right now, I am going through Wikipedia namespace pages, and indexing them. This information could be useful to better organize the Help:Contents and other key pages. In the end, people working on Help contents are thinking of a system like Amazon or Ebay, where a smaller selection of key topics and links are on the help page, with subpages that go into more detail for particular help topics. Right now the help contents page is nearly useless to me, with the only way I find things there is by hitting CTRL+F.

Thusfar, I have started:

1. Sorting the pages at User:Kmf164/Index, using a somewhat complete list of pages taken from the Jan 25 enwiki db dump. I have posted the list at User:Kmf164/WPindex-a, with the list split up alphabetically. There are nearly 14,000 pages (many are redirects).
2. Weeding out all the redirect pages from the list.
3. Sorting valid pages by general topic. I was planning on later organizing these general topics, hierarchically.
4. Also, using the page_counter variable from the page table. I'm not entirely sure how it's calculated in the db or when/if it's reset), but page_counter gives a relative measure of popularity. Any pages on this list, I am bolding on User:Kmf164/Index and noting the page_counter value.

I don't mind others editing these pages in my namespace, or we could move these into Wikipedia:WikiProject Help. Maybe before continuing topic sorting, maybe it would help more to just weed out all the redirect pages from the list of 14,000 pages. If you can help with that, or have something else in mind that you'd like to help with, that's fine with me. Or if I didn't make myself clear in my explanation, please drop me a note. Thanks. -|Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the page_is_redirect. That should work great. I've also looked over the Topical index and WikiProject pages. The topic categories you have look good and useful, and could just be updated, as needed. Thanks. -|Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of pages is great. I can cross check it with my list (run w/o redirect pages), and determine which ones are most visited, by looking at page/cur_counter. This will be important in making the help pages more useful, by listing just these key pages up front. Then, if someone is interested in a topic area, they can go to a help subpage with a more complete list. Thanks for generating the list. -|Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy doody, yo. Makaristos 01:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidy ho, reed sam... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya, that was me. How did you even catch that since I had only done a couple of edits on a random article and hadn't created a user page yet? I've been creating accounts at some of the bigger wikis, partly as a preemptive reservation of my user name, and partly because I have been investigating some of the other wikis, seeing how they operate, what sort of growth rate they have, etc. ^BlankVerse 08:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized your name on this list. I understand their desire to require an account to view pages, but it's just going to fill their user list with fake accounts (like the two that I've already created that start with fakename). JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He, thanks for the barnstar. It kind of made me blush. I am not used to getting such "medals". :) --David Göthberg 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. The last thing we need is another eruption of centrist egoism. ... aa:talk 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I was, but apparently SPUI disagreed. What I was trying to find a way to express was my view that the page SPUI was referring to was a classic example of reducio ad absurdum argument, or trolling. Read strictly, my comment was a compliment - "SPUI, you have once again successflly demonstrated your great skill in your chosen profession." But it was meant to suggest that what he had been doing by creating the template was trolling, and that is sometimes viewed as a personal attack, so I have no problem with you removing it. I assume that the mere description of the page he links to is probably quite sufficient to make it clear the validity of his question. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. Feel free to suggest any pictures that I should consider taking, provided that it is within easy access of where I am right now. Allentchang 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JesseW, I am very thankful to you for awarding a beautiful and first Barnstar to me. It will help me to keep up the enthusiasm towards the work. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to do it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for my barnstar! It's nice to feel appreciated now and again! Cheers, CLW 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been awarded a barnstar for their contributions to WikiProject Userboxes.

This ((User Barnstar)) was awarded to my in this edit by User:Coolgamer. I assume it was for my work in substituting userboxes. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to User:Dmcdevit, as I think they were supposed to go _below_ the line, not at top of page, blanking some of that user's text. Let me know if I was wrong about where your changes were supposed to go. Shenme 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Dmcdevit complained about no-one messing with his userpage for April 1st, so I volunteered; I did the blanking intentionally... No harm, no foul... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jesse,

I was referred to you by User:Dmcdevit, whom I asked about Reed, where I am thinking of applying. He said here that going to Reed was "the best possible decision [he] could have made." I thought I'd ask you for your opinion, if you're not too busy.

Is the reputation for "extreme academic workload, a sink-or-swim social ethic, and a reputation for heavy recreational drug use" (Reed College) accurate? I don't mind a "reputation as politically left-wing," but are other viewpoints encouraged and welcomed? And How did you get your parents to let you go to such a crazy place?

Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an excellent, if pretty tough school. The workload is still extreme, even if less than it was in past years; the claim about left-wing, like the claim about drug-use, is mainly a myth of past time - there is very little political action on campus, with some varient of libertarianism being probably the most active. The drug use thing is wildly overrated, and overdramatized. That's my short summary of the place. If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I made that comment on User:TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa's page a long time ago... anyway, I had no idea that ((ref)) and ((note)) were deprecated, thanks for the info! I had seen ((prod)) used on various articles before but never really investigated - I'll keep these in mind; thank you :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you really need some more hobbies. The pic in question is me. There is no source bc it belongs to me, and unfortunatley, unlike some on here, I have a life outside this computer, and have better things to do than be a picture Nazi on wikipedia. BTW, have you ever been laid?? Just wondering P.S. - Good job sharp-shooter ;-) I'm sure someone, somewhere appreciates your diligence. Cavell 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

I always have, and continue to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD_THOR, thanks. As for the original poster - Wikipedia is not MySpace. Take your non-notable self portraits elsewhere, please. And as for the clumsy attempt at an insult... yes I have, as it happens; and in any case, one question mark is sufficient for sane people. Have a nice day. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

hi Jesse,

first of all, happy eastern from a nice and sunny amsterdam. I need to know something you might know more about. I found out that an article that i am maintaining has been deleted on wikipedia by you. the problem is that i spend a considerable amount of time in it, and now i cannot even find the backup, so i can make it better according your standards. it was an article about Zirk, which is an group of friend in amsterdam which creates events w/o license or permission, and which represents a community of about 2000 people. We have website, but we cannot have this public since the events will be uncontrolable: for that reason we decided to explain what zirk means in the wikipedia.

Please tell me the reason, since we made it incl. external reference links and picture, and what i must do o get it back.

sincerly,

Dirk

First of all, thanks for being polite and understanding about this. As it was quite short, I've pasted the content of the article below. The most obvious issue with that content is that it does not claim that many(i.e. 2000) people attend these parties, or that they have been going on for a considerable length of time(i.e. since 1990), or that they have been reported on by major media. Wikipedia is not intended to include events that are only of local interest. Also, posts on web forums are not reliable sources, particularly ones that are not viewable by the public. If Zirk has been had major media stories written on it, it may be acceptable for Wikipedia, but not otherwise. If you wish, you may recreate the article and immediately list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to request discussion by Wikipedians on the merit of having the article in Wikipedia, but I suspect that it will simply be deleted again. And after an AfD, further re-creations are likely to be deleted on sight, within minutes. You might try a site listing Amsterdam dance parties, instead of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A unexpected psychedelic trance party, appearing in and/or around Amsterdam, The Netherlands, usually shut down by local police forces.

Visitors of Zirk events are neo-hippies that are networked through a closed/secret mailinglist system.

references: quote from this article:forum article (you'll need to be a user to read this)

I noticed that you are keen to upload missing photographs in California. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for California articles needing photos - to use it, just add ((reqphotoin|California)) to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but if people start populating it, it would be an easy way for people like you to see an extensive list California-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually sure where to post this, but wanted to say thanks for unblocking me. Really appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowmoore (talk • contribs) 10:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I still believe it should be deleted: from the upload page, the first instruction is "The source of the file [must be listed]" or it will be deleted. Per WP:IUP Rule of Thumb step 2 "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. Don't put credits in images themselves."

People get pissed at admins who don't allways follow the rules, and this is one of those places where we need to be consistant. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your note. I think that it would be a really good idea - divide up recent changes and send them out to multiple users like a renderfarm. At the moment I'm getting into edit conflicts when I try to do RC patrol (since I don't have rollback, it takes me a lot longer) and meanwhile, some idiocy is creeping through the system.

If RC patrol is being troublesome, I'd suggest you might find OC patrol(aka Randompage digging)(both terms I just made up) to be more rewarding. This consists of clicking Random article, reviewing the last days changes to that article, and fixing any vandalism/libel/other bad stuff that shows up. You are very unlikely to run into edit conflicts, as the choice of page is random. (I ought to hack up a user script to make this a one-click act... JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that some vandals are getting better at it - for example, they'll make an incorrect but sensible-looking edit, then a nonsense edit, and revert the nonsense, making it look like they've reverted their own test when the truth is that they've just added a vandalisation. - Richardcavell 02:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that trick is to use diff links that show the differences between the state before all the last editor's changes, not just the last edit. It is also useful to view a diff of all the changes in a page in the last day; this tends to make many kinds of otherwise hidden vandalism stick out. Thanks for your reply! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use ((subst:test)) instead of ((test)). This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry if I have offended you. Though not an excuse, I have been on autopilot with regards to substing templates, and reminding users to subst. See my contributions for more background information on my subst:ing rampage. I use the template because it saves me time. I am trying to efficiently complete this operation, and ((subst)) helps me accomplish it.
2. As for your archiving policy, I suggested archiving because your talk page is currently over 32KB. Maybe I misunderstood your policy when I posted. If you have further questions, or feel that my apologies are unacceptable, contact me on my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree with your opinion about the boxes. I use the said template because it is an established standard/common template, not because I want to -- I was half-suprised (when I first saw the template) to see a box surround the warning. If I were to change it to a textual (if that's a word...) warning, I fear that I may have some backlash. Oh well. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the templates! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You're asking for a lot of information that is rarely if ever actually included in wikimedia photo uploads. Presuming the child in the photo IS myself, I have no interest in being identified.. I have no recollection of what year that photo was taken, probably I was around 12 years old, so one could guesstimate 1991-ish. I have absolutely no idea what kind of a camera it was taken with; the crappy camera I had when I was a kid, no doubt, with that weird telephone-shaped film they don't even make anymore. The guy in the costume is "Generic Disney World Employee". Pacian 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered a non-complaint mirror at www.quickseek.com, which is already listed at WP:MIRROR. I went to email them, did a whois and got the email address frodriguez@tsvgroup.com which a further whois on tsvgroup.com resolved to domainsbyproxy.com. Looking at their legal agreement they state:

Legal Complaints: The majority of Domains by Proxy customers act within the letter of the law. However, on occasion our service is used in conjunction with illegal or immoral behavior. If you believe a domain registration we hold violates the law or someone’s legal rights or is engaged in morally objectionable activities, we want to fully investigate the matter and act where we can. If you identify a situation you believe warrants our attention, please contact us via certified or courier mail

and list their address, a US postal one. What's the best next step? I'm bringing this to you because your name was on the WP:MIRROR site, you're sensible and I like you. Steve block Talk 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm noticing your commentary in the Wikipedia mail list relative to your encouraging User:Light&Truth to try to come back to Wikipedia. Would you kindly refrain from doing that? That user name and User:Mokotok have been confirmed by WP:RFCU as being sockpuppets of the permanently banned disruptive editor Resid Gulerdem. Check User has been verified by two independent RFCU admins so there is virtually no doubt in this regard. Thanks. Netscott 12:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have been confirmed as being from the same place, and editing on the same subject. They have not been confirmed, AFAIK, as being the same actual, live person. Considering the length and detail to which the claimed owner of Light&Truth has posted to Wikipedia, I consider it reasonable that one of two things are true: either both Rgulerdem and Light&Truth are run by the same person, and that person is willing to invent an entirely fictious personality, in great detail; or, as I think is more likely, the two accounts are actually meatpuppets (which, AFAIK, RFCU cannot distinguish), and, if the person running Light&Truth did actually avoid the controversy they were previously involved in (which I doubt is possible), they might be a useful editor. I appreciate your request, but RFCU simply does not mean what you think it means. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to RFCU, there's more proof than a simple shared IP to establish their sockpuppet status. The problem is that User:Rgulerdem has a history of using sockpuppets to be disruptive. If either of his latest creations are unblocked they'll just follow the disruptive pattern that Resid Gulerdem is known for. Being rather familiar with Resid Gulerdem's disruptive habits and use of language I can tell you with absolute confidence that the language that User:Light&Truth is using on the mailing list is identical to his. If you read over the language you'll also note a certain defiance in a couple of the letters and an overly adoring tone toward "Dr." Gulerdem (I seriously doubt he's a doctor). It's just himself praising himself. Please don't be decieved by him and through his deception allow more disrupting to occur. Netscott 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's the further information that I was looking for. If he is known for making up fake people, and pretending that they are different people, I'll accept that. Would it be helpful for me to comment on the mailing list, saying this, or not? JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional info. User:Raphael1 (the currently blocked for a week for personally attacking admins "re: persecutors of Muslims" Raphael Wegmann on the mailing list) requested RFCU admin User:Fred Bauder to verify RFCU admin User:Essjay's establishment of sockpuppetry which he did. I'd rather not have my e-mail going public put please don't hesitate to point others to this talk. Netscott 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further illustrate Resid Gulerdem's disruptive nature please be aware of his entirely independent block log on the Turkish Wikipedia. Netscott 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utverylong is pretty widely used on User_talk pages, though. And I know (from personal experience) that boxed notices on user_talk pages offend some users, so there does not seem to be any good reason to unnecessarily offend people. I look forward to your response; feel free to revert the template back to the non-boxed version if you agree. (Copied from it's talk page) JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just fork it. Make Template:Utverylong2 (or some other such name), and put one in a box and the other not. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belatedly notice that you deleted File:Farfurii aneversare incoronare 1922.jpg. Nothing to do about it now, but I would point out that a work of art from before 1923 is inherently public domain. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under U.S. law, work that was created and first published before January 1, 1923 is public domain. A commemorative plate for a 1922 event should be "safe" (although, admittedly, close to the line): it is extremely unlikely that it came out significantly after the event it commemorates. - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, even the English edition, no longer works only under U.S. law. According to our article on public domain: In order for something to be in public domain by expiration of copyright in (nearly) all countries, besides the 1923 rule, it must also be true that "The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year". So if we don't know the author, and it's vaguly plausable that the author died after 1936, it's not PD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. So does this mean that we have to get rid of all of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica content, since plenty of those authors were still alive 25 years later? That we, similarly, cannot use content from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 without researching death dates of particular authors? I would point out that there are entire web sites dedicated to reproducing these works in their entirety, and that Project Gutenberg, in particular, doesn't seem to feel that they are on shaky ground over the 1911 EB. That seems astounding to me: I've never heard any suggestion anywhere, by anyone with more than a passing familiarity with copyright law, that there is any question about the PD status of such works. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the 70 years after author death bit comes from German copyright law, which became EU law. Our articles on this are not as complete as they ought to be, so I'll have to get back to you on the subject. There is no question about the PD status of pre-1923 works in the United States. The question comes regarding works of uncertain authorship(or uncertain author death date) being in the public domain in the EU. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A informative external page: http://www.gutenberg.nl/copyright/duration . JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For removing 22000+ unencyclopedically unworthy pages from Wikipedia and helping to keep the encyclopedia in a healthy state - As a new admin, I can certainly attest to the unappetizing kind of hard work (clearing CSD). Regards, Blnguyen

Perhaps a monthly delivery is required for your magnitude of work! Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good to see an admin actually cleaning out the images. Kevin_b_er 06:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JesseW. I just replaced the logo on the Ironworkers page. I see that you uploaded the original Image:International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers logo from dol dot gov.jpg, and I wanted to check that you were OK with the replacement. If you are I'll list it for deletion. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as chance would have it, I'm back with another of your uploads! (The common thread is unions, not your images specifically :) I replaced Image:United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America from dol dot gov.jpg with Image:UBC union logo.png. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JesseW, for updating the ownership details on my Joshua Tree National Park images. However, I had been told by Pschemp that images shouldn't be uploaded to wikipedia, and that I should only add these to the commons where others can decide if they contribute anything to wiki articles. Pschemp added the delete tags to those images so that they'd be deleted. She also orphaned them by removing them from the articles I had added them to. The whole thing annoyed me with how one-sided it was, so I'm actually looking to just have my wiki contributions deleted. Even with the ownership information, the images are still orphaned, so I imagine one of the orphan bots will delete them soon enough.Pixel23 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and general support. I am not trying to engage in any "autobiography per se. Rather, I am trying to point wiki readers/members of the public to where they may find additional information about important people/organizations in our archive (which is open to everyone by appointment. Sort of like an annotated bibliography or an additional reading note.

WJHC

While I can certainly see the reasoning behind your request to move my Meetings of the Cumberland Presbyterian General Assembly page to WikiSource, I would have appreciated time, and perhaps instructions, on how to move it rather than simply to have the page vanish. It was a lot of work. It would also have been polite to fix the broken links that the deletion of the page left behind.

Leylander 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please restore the images Image:Wfld1978.jpg and Image:Wfld1986.jpg, and would it be possible in the future to refrain from deleting logos which are clearly being used fairly to illustrate their subjects? DHowell 04:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, and for taking the effort to notice the deletion. I'm happy to work with you to get them identified and labeled according to Wikipedia requirements; I've undeleted them for now so we can more easily work on this together.

The main issues I see with them are:

1. They lack a specified, detailed rationale for they being fair use in this case. I agree they seem justified, but it is important for us to explain this in detail. You can probably paste the same rationale for all the historical logos.
2. Their source is not entirely clear; with current logos, a source is generally not that important - verifying them is very easy, and just assuming they were copied from the orgnaization's website is typically good enough. Neither of these is the case with historical logos like the two you mention. If we can find them online, we should mention the URL; otherwise, it'd be great if you could find them offline somewhere, and just add a comment verifing that they are correct.
3. They need a copyright tag; as I see on your user page, you know about that formality. ;-)

I look forward to working with you to get these fixed up, and thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia; we need more people double-checking image deletions! (Copied from my talk page) JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. When linking to images (even deleted images), it's better to add a colon before the image name; with deleted images, a colon-less link leads to the Upload form, but a colon-ized link leads to the edit page (which has a link to the deleted revisions, for admins). JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the images. I have found the URL of the site where they most likely came from and have hopefully provided all the required information. I am happy to see that image undeletion has been recently made to work in Wikipedia, this alleviates much of my concern that some historical logos might be lost forever. DHowell 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted by image undeletion as well; it always sadened me when I'd be deleting hundreds of unsourced or untagged images, and know for certain that at least some of them would be in error. It is so much better to be able to fix my mistakes in this area now. The two logos look fine now; I added a link to the page on the site where they are from, as the direct links run afoul of fortunecity's referrer check. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment... it meant a lot to have supportive feedback.

I didn't want to label a bunch of FAQ essays "policy" though. I figured if they were, others (consensus) would make that call.

A good policy can be great if its crisp, readable, and informative, but lengthy "chat" and discussion can obscure the actual points being made. It's such a major policy, and so tense in editing, in some ways. The problem is it's never been cleaned up, maybe because people just "got used to it being a mess". There's a fair bit more cleanup possible by just organizing existing material without change. But I didn't want to do more until I saw what people felt about this edit.

I've just reorganized the existing sections with no textual change, and I'm thinking "enough for now", lets see if these last two edits have consensus. Thank you once again for your support in the FAQ move. It's a small and obvious thing, but it meant a lot :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. We'll see what comments people have re: the non-policy of the FAQ sections. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd leave you a quick note with this being my username. Mind you, it's my new one, not the one I've done a lot of major edits on. This one, for the summer, is for minor things that NEED to be done.

--Mistressblaed 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC), from Music festival 2006[reply]

/me continues to find the idea of many accounts mystifying, but is glad to know in any case.JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just so disorganised. Remember, I'd lose my head if it wasn't screwed on tight. -- Mistressblaed 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still losing my head, because it obviously hasn't been screwed on tight enough. Iaborant 06:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... the phone trivia thing was just an interesting note that I made. It's probably of no interest to any of society, but since Portland is the only town in Northampton County that lies within the 570 area code, and the rest of the county is in 610/484, I found it interesting. Perhaps it's just the phonegeek in me. :-) --Ngsantia 05:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted if you re-add it, with sufficient instructions on how to pull the data out of the teledatabase, or even better (although more work) contact Ram-Man and see if he might be interested in working such data into the standard template for those city articles. Good luck! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I might do just that, once I figure out a clean way to do so. And btw, you've gotta be the politest Wikipedian I've dealt with to date. Thanks for that. Ngsantia 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of us are polite. You just happened to run into a, how shall I say it, bad apple. Please don't take this as typical. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your appreciation is appreciated :) If you need a special picture from the Louvre or anywhere in Paris, please let me know. Jastrow 13:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry Jesse. I did 500 deletes that day and towards the end of the shift I got quite disorientated and started writing "unsourced image csd i4" even after I finished with the images and moved onto the prods, so unfortunately a few of the prods that day had "unsourced image" that day. I held myself back and took leave for the day after that. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some ne'er-do-well went and changed your userpage. Just thought you'd like to know. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I love to do repetitive tasks like that - I had about two hours before a doctor's appointment and that's about how long it took. I didn't really intend to do the whole thing, but after I finished the Es or Gs I took a look at the length of the rest of the list and decided to push on. I did them in groups of 8 or 12, because that's how many tabs I can get in one window of Safari and still see all their titles, and it was less than 10 minutes per window. I don't think there were 400 left when I started - more like 200, maybe 250.

It also helped not to have to decide which ones stayed on the list and which ones were crossed off - I just had to look at the page, see if it's still current, delete the current tag if not, then move on. Some of the WP maintenance/cleanup projects want you to cross items off, some want you to judge what should stay or not, some want you to keep them on the list but strike through them... I wish everybody had one method. Not gonna happen, though, so I shall one day write a thesis on the 1,001 Wild Wikipedia Ways to Weirdly Wack... something. ;-) see ya - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jesse, yes I've stepped back, but it seems I am notthe only one worried about the backlogs (although few seem to be). Actually, it is now the 14th, so those in the 6th are ready for deletion, and the other thing is that I've seen for a long time that lots of people delete things in PROD category on the 9th, when today is the 14th - so actually they only wait between 4 and 5 days for prods and 6 and 7 for the images (technically not obeying the rules, but it seems that nobody follows it exactly). So that would mean that "normal practice" (though technically incorrect) would have it have it that images of July 7 and prods of July 9 are also to be deleted as of now. As for the backlogs I'm guessing that you're reassuring me that it is usually like this and nothing to be worried about? Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. I have a semi-automatic tool I use to handle the no_source categories, and it checks the the pages have been uploaded more than 7 days ago, no exceptions (and that they haven't been edited in the last day, just as a further check), so I don't usually get to the NS categories until at least one day past the 7 days. A backlog, to me, is 2 or 3 days beyond the 7 day limit. As for PRODs - I'm not that familiar with the non-toolserver process, but I assume people cut it close due to non-automatic checking (which was available on the toolserver, may it soon return). Glad there are other people concerned about the backlogs. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

... show really fantastic insight into the whole purpose of the Wiki. I think your distinction about the purpose of Wikipedia -- to write an encyclopedia, not to be one, essentially -- was subtle but extremely important. It goes straight to the nature of the whole project, and really captures a point that I felt but until now couldn't put into words. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 07:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT 24.218.109.71. Users with just numbers are usually anonymous posters. I allways post under my user name, and sign my posts. Dubhdara 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just poked around your userpage(I was led there with intrigue from the link that said "the juggling janitor"), and I just wanted to say I think it's great. There's a lot there that just really makes me feel good about Wikipedia. I'm glad there are people like you around. KevinPuj 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember my ArbCom case filed June 19, 06 or so? It seems to have disappeared. I can find it neither in rejected cases, decided cases, archives. Perhaps it was refactored out of existence (which I would not put past the clerks). In any case, I know that YOU can find a link to it, if anybody can. I have somebody else who recently asked me if they could read the specifics. Thanks for any help. SBHarris 21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was never accepted; according to your contributions list, you last edited it on: 06:45, 24 June 2006; this is a link to that revision (with an anchor to get you to the specific request). Although I'm not particularly familiar with ArbCom procedures, as of that date the case had 4 votes against accepting, and one to accept - I asuume it was simply removed as a unaccepted case a few days later. (Except for deleted edits), you can find any edit you made in your contributions link. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Groveling through the ArbCom page history, I found the edit where it was (quite properly) formally rejected: 00:27, 25 June 2006. Glad to help. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew you'd find it. Gracias.SBHarris 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the toolserver seems to have a small caching problem. I coded around that, the form description from meta now works as expected, including accessdate. --Magnus Manske 08:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! Accessdate works now. For BibTex, just paste a BibTex citation (starting with '@', ending with '}') into the field (currently for "paper" only), and click on the button. It will try to figure out values and enter them into the form. Check the values and click the button again to get the reference. --Magnus Manske 07:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on IRC? It would help speed this up if you were. What button? The main button just gives me "required param" errors. Accessdate works now, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added flavors to a couple of brands. I have been busy lately so I will try to help out on the project when I have time.

Done. (Say, off the topic of ice cream, I noticed you live in CA. If you know anyone else on Wikipedia who lives in CA, we could write an article on the record-breaking heatwave...) --Blackjack48 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the ((backlog)) template in this category to see if I am able to reduce the amount of articles in the category, but it has not been effective as of yet. I have found a lot of crappy articles that I believe meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but people keep removing that tag and replacing it with other templates marking the articles for deletion. Some of it is blatant nonsense and non-notable bios, but those certain admins do not see it the same way. What I am trying to say is that I am trying my hardest to clean that page up, but nothing is working. I wanted to make you aware of my actions. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Got to say, I've scanned User:Hillman and have had the same thoughts myself. Not sure what to do about it. Still, one more thing to sort out, some tendentious edits at Fred Phelps funnily enough, which have remained in the article for over a year, and then I return to my break. I pretty much agree with the idea that Wikipedia is an anarchy and that a fork might be a better idea. Do you know any rich people who would support a fork? :) Steve block Talk 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JesseW, I just found your day old request for a synopsis of the article that you couldn't get to. Wonder why not? I've been a member since practically forever, and it is a 2001 article. Maybe that has something to do with it. Anyway, my synopsis plus relevant counter evidence is posted now. GRBerry 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman, to me, establishes a lofty goal for Wikipedia, and then proves that we will never make it. I don't think I edit Wikipedia (in the few edits I have done) because I think we will ever finish. I do think that we are continually moving forward. I also think that there needs to be a way for good articles to be saved so that we have a method of some quality assurance. That's why I'm so excited about Wikipedia:Stabilizing featured articles. I'll write more on his talk page. --Wslack 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JesseW, I read your user page message, then Hillman's. You asked for feedback, so here are one stranger's thoughts.

I'm still (somewhat) open-minded about the nature of Wikipedia, but I am generally suspicious of baby-with-bathwater points of view like Hillman's. His comparator seems to be a print encyclopedia, but I'm quite sure no general-purpose print encyclopedia will be dealing in the details of quantum physics like he is (was). The frustrations of a PhD working in an abstract, arcane field that is not particular relevant to the masses are not, in my opinion, a bellwether for the impending failure of Wikipedia. If the fate of Wikipedia is to be reasonably helpful and accurate for readers on the subject of, say, Bangladesh, but not so accurate on Aichelburg-Sexl ultraboost, I would hardly consider the whole enterprise a failure. While his argument seems to be in earnest, I also find it deceiving. (P.S. I'm all for encouraging expert knowledge on WP and don't find "anti-elitism" to be a positive theme, to the extent it supposedly exists.) Outriggr 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the way to go is the proposal BD has up... that's gathering some consensus towards what will work, and what won't. Implimenting the stuff I talk about would probably meet a lot of resistance so proposals like his are the way to go. --W.marsh 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant User:BD2412. I didn't feel like looking up the numbers after his name and thought you'd know who I meant, hehe. And the proposal is Wikipedia:Enforce inclusion of categories. --W.marsh 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the Wikisource controversy you were involved in? Glancing over the contrib list for wikisource:User:Zanimum doesn't help much. ;-) The meta:User:Zanimum gives no dice, either... Were you just making it up, or was it on a mailing list, or what? Inquiring minds want to know... Thanks for all your work, in any case. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he he. Um, I designed the new logo for Wikisource more than a year ago now, uploaded it to the project, asked whether anyone wished to replace the ugly photo with a vectorized version of the image. That sparked a whole 9-month or something competition to design a new logo, which was completely fair enough from my perspective. But a couple of months ago, the German's got peaved at how blasted long it was taking the English Wikisource to vote on the process, so they did a quick strawpoll, for or against my logo solely, and put up my logo as their new logo. Because every language for each project has to have the same graphic identity, everybody else was forced along to use it, which of course peaved everybody who was against my logo. (In all honest, even if the vote did go through on en, the board doesn't have to follow the vote, and could have used any of the logo submissions.) -- Zanimum 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I did see the post you made about the logo but I thought - oh, there's just one post there, and it doesn't look too controversial, that must not be it - how wrong I was... ;-) The Wikisource logo controversy had passed vaguly across my radar screen a few times, but I forgot you were the maker of the now sucessful one. Heh again. Thanks for explaining! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi; could you explain why you made this edit? I'm not seeing why that user's contribution is objectionable enough to revert without discussion. Thank you. Captainktainer * Talk 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! That explains a lot, and I'll place the edit back in; possibly the user will leave the article alone now. If possible, it might be helpful to leave a message on the talk page or in the edit summary with explanations to that effect with future rollbacks. Captainktainer * Talk 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly garish (but clearly skillfully made) RfA thank you note removed

Er, thanks, I think. I must admit, this is one of the single biggest reasons I don't vote on RfAs most of the time. I didn't thank anyone when my RfA passed, and it passed with no objections at all. It's NOT A BIG DEAL. Brightly colored thank you notes are about as far away from not-a-big-deal as we can get... In any case, I'm glad you're now a janitor, and I'll start hassling you to help with WP:CP RSN... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With editors like you around, this project will succeed. In fact, it already has. Thanks for participating. -Will Beback 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help. It looks like plenty of sources have been identified - the issue appears to be keeping the information balanced. I'll take a more careful look this evening. -Will Beback 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I greatly apprecite you tagging unsourced images, they will be deleted in time, don't put them in CSD. CSD is for things that are urgent; they arn't. If some image is particuarly a problem, it's OK, but don't do it en masse. You'll just piss off the people (like me) clearing out CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realise that would cause a problem. Won't do that again. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- I reverted your change to Template:Permission from license selector. I know this has caused a big load on CAT:CSD (believe me, I know..) but there was prior discussion on either meta or media about this, where people seemed to be in favor of it. We should probably have a discussion before changing it, though, because it's substed directly onto new uploads. Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time remembering. Let's ask User:Stifle, since I think he was involved. Mangojuice^talk 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on a different wiki, I think mediawiki, but not sure. Basically, there's another wiki where they configure features, such as what an uploader selects from the pull-down menu of license choices, and what that translates to on the image page. Truth is, it's been over a year since uploading "with permission only" has made an image speedyable, and I think part of the idea here is to try to train people not to do that. But I wouldn't mind a better solution! Mangojuice^talk 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't ((no license)) work? (As for the place where the pull-down menu is set, it's MediaWiki:Licenses, and I've already read that talk page.) (Also, thanks for asking Stifle for input.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the discussion I was looking for. Is there a bot that changes ((no license)) into a speedy tag after enough time? If so, there's not much point in changing it: users who aren't familiar with WP don't really ever get it right; they don't know how to edit license tags, and so on, so that would only ease the burden for 5 days. If we don't have such a bot, then (1) we should, and (2) using {no license} makes MORE work, because now an editor actually has to find the page and tag it for speedy deletion (or delete it). The only way using a no license tag makes it less work is if we let those images remain because no one bothers to clean them up... which obviously isn't ideal. Anyway, I'm going to post on WP:AN; that's probably the best way to get broad input from admins. Mangojuice^talk 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi jesse, just a quick note to let you know that you're not alone in battling the Microsoft Works format. See the update i added to the page and the link to the usenet discussion - the thread starts here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.wpd.devel/1316 and you'll find the C++ package here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.wpd.devel/1324 - my understanding is that this should become a GPL library so that OpenOffice (and AbiWord, presumably) will be able to integrate these, though there's probably no need to add to the wikipedia article speculation about future development plans. Probably just having links to the basic free software stuff that exists is enough and NPOV IMHO. Boud 14:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess I hadn't thought there would be any negative repercussions to putting something that is already a CSD in the CSD category. They certainly not urgent, but I want to come up with a way to solve the problem before it gets to 5,000 images again and I have to delete them all myself. :-) Can you think of anything? Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long pasted copy of various well-known critical essays on Wikipedia removed

Thanks, but I've already read those essays. Did you have anything to say yourself, personally? JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I'm sure that has everything to do with my userpage, which has contained some musing on the role of experts here. I certainly wouldn't say that I am in "rebellion", however... just the other day I was sniped at for paying too much attention to what User:Jimbo Wales thinks about image use. If anything, I have a rather naive faith that we'll eventually work out a number of ways to make things run more smoothly for good faith editors of all different skills and backgrounds. While I'm here, by the way, thanks for all the excellent cleanup work that you do. Jkelly 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed the backlog tag in Category:Category needed, I re added it again. Recently it's organised per month, and there are about a 1000 articles (rough guess) in the sub category Category:Uncategorized from August 2006. So plenty to do. :) Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the compliment. Garion96 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have edited this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

This page is the #2 site that comes up when doing a "Mitt Romney" google. In my opinion, it is better than any other Mitt Romney article. However, it is not very comprehensive. I'm trying to make something more like a Mitt Romney book, instead of a Mitt Romney Article. The website is here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/

I examine many additional topics, but I want more perspectives than just my own. I would like you to help contribute, if you would like. Just e-mail me at: mike.laub@gmail.com, and I will give you the password!

Until we get more people working on it, I would like to keep the password a secret. I do not have enough time to correct graffiti.

Hey, I was just adding the copyright and permission info. when you deleted it. Give people more than a couple of minutes Noles1984 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you just re-uploaded it. Assuming the new information you provided is OK, there's no more problem. Non-comercial only images have been not allowed here for more than a year; it's more than time for us to stamp on them quickly... JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the correct copyright info in after making the error. You jumped while I was replacing the copyright. Oh yeah, archive your talk... it's gettiing hefty :-) Noles1984 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, it actually was intentional. It was during a run of usernames a troll was making, including User:BORED TROLL, TEH KING GOT BLOCKED!!!, User:Willy Willy Willy User:Trolling is Sexy. See here. Usually (obviously) I wouldnt do that :) Hope this explains, - Glen 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. You may wish to block User:Canook, then. To avoid such misunderstandings in the future, please use "trolling" rather than "username" as the block reason. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reasoned explanation on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Moodie (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, and replied on your talk page. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. I understand now. I am expert in the field but not in wikipeding so I am grateful for your support - Gavin Moodie 8 September 2006.

Thanks. hopefully I can copy the format when I enter in the info for the other issues. (At this point I ahve more, but hardly all of them.) The only thing is that the note for the cover art gets put with a story that doesn't ahve a note. It's a good thing you fixed this, since other people might have interpreted some things about the first issue incorrectly, too. I've fixed those. --Scottandrewhutchins 23:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse, I would like to thank you very much for helping out with WP:APPROVE and WP:ARFA. If it weren't for your help, I don't think it would be where it is today. Your assistance and your comments have been a great help for what is potentially a very helpful system, and I hope you can continue to help it so it can reach its potential. Again, thank you! —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal is just a terrible idea. The national singer categories should be empty with everyone in more detailed categories instead. What you are proposing to do is to send the category system backwards to a less developed state and to add category clutter to articles. Please don't do it. Brammen 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I'm glad that you agree we should have categories for male and female singers of a given nationality, not just female singers. Regarding placing all the singers of a given nationality in the main category, after reviewing the existing categories, I see that you are correct; I misread the categories I looked at, the custom does seem to be to put only unsubcatagorized singers in the national categories. I will update my explanation of current practice (at Category_talk:Singers by gender) to reflect this, and ask someone with a bot to remove everyone from Category:Filipino singers as long as they are part of the gendered categories. Thanks for clarifing this! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Was this a speedy delete? Last time I looked, 'spam' wasn't a speedy-delete criterion, and if it was a speedy (I can't find an AfD), it probably goes against consensus on deletion speeds. Not that I want the article saved or anything, it's just that that kind of thing can lead to trouble. --ais523 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for doing this; I've done this sort of CSD checking myself, and it's good work. You were right in this case, and I have undeleted it and nominated it for WP:PROD instead. But please do check the link you made, as it doesn't work; you should use: this instead. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Obviously the link should have been external. --ais523 16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jesse, I see you added the OCLC number for this book, given that the ISBN wasn't good. That seems like a step forward, and could be done elsewhere too! How would you feel about also adding the phrase 'No ISBN available?' Somebody might innocently re-add the invalid ISBN otherwise. I did this with A Certain Woman, but nobody has picked up on my wonderful innovation yet. :-) By the way, Editorial Catálogos is the name of a publisher, you might consider putting it back. EdJohnston 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OCLC numbers, I've just now made a template for them ((OCLC)) which slightly shortens the job of adding them; if you know of some places it should be mentioned, please do. Regarding "No ISBN available" - only use it if you have a speific reason to think that; i.e. it was published before ISBNs were in use, or some other reason; there may be an ISBN available otherwise. Thanks for the note about "Editorial Catálogos" can you give me a citation where that is said to be the name of the publisher; I took it out becuase I couldn't find such a thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I'd be willing to try out an OCLC template. Does using a template make it easier to search WP for the numbers? Regarding 'No ISBN available', there is a discussion in Rich Farmbrough's talk page (now in his archive) about ISBNs that were invalid-as-published. I proposed that all such ISBNs should be removed (yes, Draconian) on the theory that WP-maintainers would be discovering them over and over, as future robot runs occur. An ISBN with a bad checksum is a horrible thing. Some data points: a. Books in Print won't even search for an invalid ISBN (they reject the search request). b. Library of Congress usually keeps such ISBNs but marks them 'Cancelled'! This seems to limit the practical value of invalid ISBNs to our users. They can always request an ISBN-less book by author and title in the old-fashioned way.

Regarding 'Editorial Catálogos', it's the top hit in a Google search for those words! (even without the accent). A page called europaworld.com comes up, and the table on the left says Argentina->Directory->Publishers... Incidentally, since you are fixing non-English language ISBNs, you might be interested in this list of national libraries worldwide that have on-line catalogs: http://www.library.uq.edu.au/natlibs/index.html EdJohnston 01:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly verifies that they exist, but I wanted verification that they published that book; and their list of biographies does't list it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the book is proudly listed (under its invalid ISBN) at http://www.lsf.com.ar/libros/0/950895001.html, and attributed to Editorial Catálogos. EdJohnston 01:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am interested in editing this is because I am marking most of the images in Category:FOTW images with ((Db-noncom)), and I have run across a few that have the proper fair use tags, so I left those alone. However, the template ((FOTWpic)) includes the ((Noncommercial)) template. Therefore, even if there is a good fair use tag and rationale, then one of the tags states that it "will be deleted without further warning", although the fair use tag and assertion means that the image is allowed here. Jesse Viviano 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. It's a very tangled subject. Regarding fair use of these images - I would find that very unlikely, as fair use of such an image would have to make a good case why that specific image (make by the FOTW contributor, etc.) was notable, historical and irreplacable, and we therefore needed to have a copy of it. I'd like to review the fair use ones you accepted. The whole FOTW thing is somewhat unclear, but as far as I can see, the case is clear that Wikipedia should not have any images uploaded from that website, as that website claims images on it are not licensed compatibally with Wikipedia's license policies. So the Noncom tag isn't wrong. Anything in that cat should be deleted on sight. I look forward to your response. And I've copied this to the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page for further discussion. Please respond there. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make the requested edit. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that says "generally, pages protected due to disputes should not be edited". I thought this was the whole point of the template. The edit I'm requesting is to correct a disambiguation, not content- or dispute-related. I doubt the page will be unprotected anytime soon as the battle with the anonymous IP editors has now moved to Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons.—Chidom ^talk  05:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the approved revision notice had been removed from this article page...

I restored the ((approved revision)) template on the talk:globular cluster page with an explanation. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Kourosh Ziabari was deleted last year, and user:kziabari has recreated the page. See also Talk:Kourosh Ziabari --Montrael 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your aid, makes me want to start contributing again.! Thanks again, --Danielof 05:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's invalid about speedying the image. There is no copy of the image on wikipedia, just an image: page with some descriptive text thats already on Commons. The file itself is on commons; the page here shouldn't exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptive text on commons is different than the text on en.wikipedia. Please figure out which parts are correct, merege them on commons, then nominate the page again. Or just nominate it again, I don't mind. I can't help further. Sorry. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for the guidance. --Bhadani 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse. How are you trimming this list? I agree that it's useful to trim. I just looked at ##1-3 of the shortened list, and both #1 Cab Calloway and #3 Caecuban wine are already fixed, and taken out of the Category. So they should also be trimmed? Cab Calloway was fixed by RainbowCrane on Sept 6. I had been fixing some bad ISBNs using the Category as a to-do list, but this one pinpoints the bad number as well. Maybe I just should have started further down.. EdJohnston 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I cleaned up Gamble-Skogmo as much as I could for citation style, verification, redlinks, and tone, and I expanded it by a couple sentences. I merely added the ((citation style)) tag as I was going through a series of articles within WikiProject Retailing's scope, although I must've considered using an External links section for references was justification enough for an improvement tag during the time. In the future, I'll either clarify myself if it's not that obvious or I'll note it down to fix the problem myself. Also, I see you on freenode a lot although I don't ever see you say anything; feel free to use it to communicate to me as well. Happy editing, Tuxide 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would evidence of a recording of their music suffice? I got most of them off of a pair of discs of Albanian piano music that I saw advertised - unfortunately, the website offered no details other than dates. And it's really difficult to find information on Albanian music online - I've been trying for some time. --AlbertHerring 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize; have you tried some of the academic archive sources - google scholar, google books, even worldcat (URLs on request). The sources to show notability don't need to be online, but they do need to be multiple, and non-trivial. Sadly, a single recording is a trivial source, like a yellow pages entry. What I'd suggest is that you create a user subpage, like User:AlbertHerring/Albanian composers, put everything you can find on them on that page, and when you have a paragraph or so, then create the articles. As a model, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Cream (list of redlinks). You might also consider a list form. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with, then - don't know when it will be, unfortunately. --AlbertHerring 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just to confirm that I'd like my user page s-protected, due to my anti-vandalism work and the ensusing vandalism. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as on Masse, which you protectd due to edit warring, but didn't put the template on. Just a heads up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! That one must have slipped by! —Mets501 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Blythe's block expired and is back to his/her old tricks: please see here: here. — Linnwood 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More here [2] — Linnwood 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Blythe with a new user name? [3] — Linnwood 16:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted the only image from Shlisselburg. I hope that you provide a free replacement. Thanks in advance, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I enjoy searching out images. In this case, I found that the Russian version of the article had a freely licensed image available; I've linked it from the talk page. I would have moved it to commons (and used it in the article) but it's author/source and license statements are only in Russian, so we need a Russian speaker to translate and make sure everything is shipshape. Again, thanks for asking. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA and thanks especially for deciding that I'm not "dangerous" ;-). You have my word that that is a correct assesment; I've successfully been a moderator (aka sysop, administrator, etc.) in various electronic communities for more than 20 years now and understand the value of keeping the community focused on the positive and working towards the community's mutual goals.

Atlant 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the rosy cross

The lectorium appears in many forms - look for example at the flight of pigeons across the square outside where you work. There is no point in deleting it - you will continue to find it wherever you look - even if you don't look it will appear. Your intensity scares people off - your poor concentration span is your downfall - bicycle travel is not a good idea - your hand will improve eventually. You are not an adept though you want to be - indeed it will be a long time before you get near the truth because you cannot turn off that hard-working critic within. If what we have said has validity keep watching - as we sadi the adept is led to us and us to him.

There is no point in deleting the lectorium - remember you were drawn to it as an adept-hopeful - indeed observe the flight of pigeons across the square right outside where you work for a further lesson. You are not an adept; indeed it will be a long time before you perceive the truth. Your intensity scares people off - your concentration span is your downfall. For yet another lectorium watch the discussion page - one will appear - do with it as you wish. Your hand will get better - bicycle travel is not recommended. If there is truth in what we write - continue to observe the page.

Do not tease the robot brain. Your hexadecimal is too weak, my son. Forget, fundamental, forsooth. The thyme does not tease - beware. In plain language - you made a page on Wikipedia that didn't belong. Thousands do likewise, every hour of every day of the year. It was deleted. If you make more, they will be deleted likewise. If you make too many from an identifiable IP address or account, they will be blocked from editing for a period of time. You have nothing to gain. Please go elsewhere. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of energy wasted on packing things up. Relax. Rosenkreusz

OK. I have, haven't you noticed? Enjoy the next seventeen months. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement: It's an administrator!

---

JesseW, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. A Finland Forum article I created was deleted relatively quickly. What is this "nngroup" marking associated with the deletion? --Muistio 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The ((cite X)) templates will be very nice to have when we have some scripts to generate interesting reports from them(like, what are all the citations of this book in the..."

You may be interested in the concepts in m:wikicite. I've been creating tools for manipulating citations, including extracting information in several formats. At present I then just use the info components for rearranging citation info into common formats, but reformatting citations is just a temporary measure until some standard citation format exists (then all that needs to be done is one last conversion to the standard format). I am forbidden from using such tools here at the moment, so my current versions are not available. One old tool is in the pywikipedia bot set (see User:RefBot description). (SEWilco 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. It was very helpful indeed. Now I found some other pictures and uploaded them to Category:Shlisselburg in Commons. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for User:JesseW/Hillman_quotes. I recently, while perusing my user pages, discovered that my link to User:Hillman had turned red. I remembered it being a very interesting read, and something I would want to look at again, so I went off to Google for an old copy and found this, from whence I came here and found the Hillman material you had made available. I note that your wikien-l post was on 26 July, while I had read it as early as April 2006 as I found by digging into my history to find this edit. It's funny how the good stuff takes a while to circulate. I wonder how many other good essays are out there? Carcharoth 01:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JesseW, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University#This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--A. B. 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which is currently searchable on-line at http://bioguide.congress.gov. We incorporate links to it via ((CongBio2)) and ((CongBio)).—Markles 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed criticism of the article, Argument from evolution. After being flagged for 5 months as needing cleaning up, I have proposed it's deletion. Please participate in the discussion of the proposal. Hackwrench 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks very much for continuing with the transcription! If I have time in the future I'll get back to work on it, but I also have to edit each new episode, so time isn't really available. So, I'm really very grateful that you put in the time to expand the transcript. Again, thank you! :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JesseW, thank you for posting a note on my user page about use of images.You asked that web site images either be acknowldged on the web site or the owner of the website email the permissions email address. I understand that you are following the rules and will arrange for the items to be photographed in a different way to that used on the web...either different angle, background cloth or something similar. Lets see if i can get this cleared up Collieman 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an external link to another wiki on the same subject SPAM? Take a look at the content on http://guide.lockpicker.net/ and tell me what makes it SPAM for the lock picking section of this wiki. Also the content that I added to that section was deleted once by the ... clown ..., though I am glad to see it has not been removed again. Take a look at the history.

I am really puzzled about why an external link to another wiki, which has no commercial aspect, is against the rules of wikipedia, and would be grateful for someone to explain this.

Certainly, I'm happy to try and explain. The biggest problem is that the site is being added by it's author/maintainer (i.e. you); this is a problem due to bias issues (it's hard to be unbiased about your own stuff), promotion issues (if someone other than the maintainer submitted it, that's at least minimal evidence that it is already well known, which is a requirement for things that go in a encyclopedia (no original research, etc.)), and other factors. The relevant advice pages on this are WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM. Beyond that - generally a wiki is not a very useful reference, (this applies to Wikipedia, too) because of it's changable nature. If there are specific revisions of specific pages which are reliable, then linking to them may be helpful, but generally, a link just to the top of the site is not. There are other reasons, but those are probably the top ones. Hope this helps to explain things. (And I note that you don't seem to be blocked, at the momement. Wern't you going to go away and never come back, or something like that, or did I misunderstand? ) JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello JesseW, sorry it took me so long to reply but RL has such an annoying way of cutting down on my wiki time. I replied on my page but here is a copy of my reply:

I like your historical point of view but a fondamental principle of Wikipedia is: Guidelines are a product of community consensus, as can be seen at Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#Guidelines_for_creating_policies_and_guidelines and Wikipedia:Consensus. The communinty has evolved, the babel boxes have become userboxes and we are using them differently now. Therefore, without some consensus, I feel the major change you made to the userbox was hasty. Changing a "I support the army" to "I want to write about the cdn army" is a conceptual leap for most userbox users. I recommend a new userbox as another option for users interested in the project. On a different note, I personally feel your statement is implied and doesn't need to be spelled out... it just makes the userbox too wordy  :) Of course I'm here to write and edit about the subjects I care about!

Lostkiwi 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The issue seems to have died down, and I never had that strong a point of view on it in any case; but I do appreciate your reply, and don't worry about the delay; life happens to all of us. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jesse! See [4] for my struggles with the OCLC template. Is there an obvious explanation for my difficulty? EdJohnston 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse, this is just a message passed on from Daveydweeb to not work on the Ep 7 transcript (in case you were planning to), as he's away and is working on it right now. Thanks, and take care! riana_dzasta 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't run AWB spelling correction on user pages - I'll keep my own spelling errors, thank you. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Entirely my fault. I should have told it to remove non-mainspace pages from the list of pages to update and I forgot. Sorry. --MarkS (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JesseW, I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For hard work on ISBNs and OCLC Rich Farmbrough, 11:52 23 December 2006 (GMT).

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Template:Infobox Software2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Mike Peel 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not familiar with the controversy. Could you explain why the category is left on the site, though? Is it some sort of compromise? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll do my homework before contemplating touching that category again. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU so much for your additions to the TOC list. You rock. jengod 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KMB Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap you're way too smart for me to follow (sorry, haven't gotten used to the wikipedia - uh - lingo (see what I mean?) yet. But when you say background color are you talking about the orange stripe in it - cause I can def. take that out easily, I mean I only added it to seperate the pic from the text.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully it wasn't that advanced lingo - it was more of me not knnowing whether documentation refered to the template itself or not.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've changed the colors - what do you think now? (feel free to make any more changes btw)Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - what do you mean "House style"? Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Cactus cat, you removed a link in a Sources section. Don't do that. You claimed it was "self-promotion"; it probably was. Nevertheless, the article was based on it; (in fact, the article was a dangerously close paraphrase of a single source, which we really shouldn't do. In any case, removing items listed as sources is a big no-no; if the source is spam, get the article deleted, or sourced from somewhere else; don't just remove the link. Thanks for your attention. 71.128.189.190 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, don't shoot the messenger. I may have felt bothered to do something about it if you had come here voicing a pleasant concern. However, your chiding and patronizing message here makes me wash my hands of it. David D. (Talk) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And don't just add back the unreliable source, that is not the solution. David D. (Talk) 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just requesting a second set of eyes around the area of the page City_of_Thuringowa. I marked it for cleanup before I remembered I had an account here, just thought I'd be a little more direct about requesting some attention for it. It's maintained mostly by one person. It's a city with population around 60k, not incredibly notable (and I live there) and someone has listed shopping centres (including corner stores), schools and fast food outlets amongst other things. Just stuff that I wouldn't have thought met the notability criteria.

I thought I should bring it up before I ignore information about the area entirely - Kirwan_State_High_School reads like an advert, Sunbus_Townsville gives partial information on the bus routes, there's articles for the local shopping centers - it's all getting a bit crazy. Especially when compared to Townsville,_Queensland and City_of_Townsville which are pretty sane. For a bit of context the two cities are thought of as pretty much the same city by most of the locals since they've grown into each other - if anyone from Thuringowa is out of town they'll usually say they're from Townsville because more people have heard of that.

Anyhow, just thought I'd point out some trivia that's being growing off in it's own corner in the hope that you or another admin can take a look at it with an eye for notability. Keep up the good work. DaveAU 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've been told that the removal of maintenance tags without asking for he original editor's permission is generally a poor faith response. That's why whenever someone adds a tag on my user talkspace or an article I'm working on, I just leave it there unless it is blatant vandalism. I simply comment on it and see how it goes from there. --Madchester 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please look at this page and give me an opinion on whether my removal of the tag after having provide a rationale is appropriate?

Image:TAR10Kandice.jpg

Thanks. -- evrik ^(talk) 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help, but fair use ajudication is not something I get involved with; sorry about that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my bot editing your userpage upset you. (I also noticed that, stupidly enough, whoever userfied that box put it back again anyway.) I keep meaning to get around to making my bot exclusion compliant and I keep forgetting. However, I would just like to point out that on the page for the exclusion template itself it says that bots are not bound to observe the nobots tag, and if you look at the list of compliant bots you'll see that only four out of the sixty or so bots currently active are exclusion compliant. I still intend to make mine exclusion compliant and wish that more people would feel obligated to do the same, but at present there is no basis for blocking a bot for ignoring it.--Dycedarg ж 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted my image Das.jpg, under the argument that it doesnt have a copyright tag. If you notice again the image, it have a copytag, the fact that is a Logo for a government agency, scanned from my personal documents. User:F3rn4nd0 added the speedy deletion tag and deleted the logo tag in order to use his own logo for the DAS, Image:DepAdSegColombia.png, which is from less quality and according to him, created by himself (according to the previous tag). Please undelete my logo in order to use that one for the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad because unless you know spanish, with the current logo is hard to read what it say, and the colors are wrong. This image HAS been putted in the deletion review. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Das.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I would invite you to comment on this thread where your activities are mentioned. Dragons flight 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the unfortunate experience of needing to read Special:Allpages for the Wikipedia namespace. It's so choked with redirects and subpages as to be almost useless. Then by sheer luck, while still in the A's, I discovered your index page. What an awesome list.

Please make a new User:JesseW/WPindex

Please explain, step-by-step, how you created the list.

By the way, is there any other resource like this?

User:The Transhumanist15:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this article for a couple of reasons. Firstly, notability was in fact asserted, albeit poorly. Secondly, consensus has been established that Eurovision participants are notable, and as Ms Hasprová verifiably participated in that contest, she qualifies. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in The Register, by Tom Melly: the basic point is that, if journalists and other writers are using Wikipedia as a source (and, as is their custom, not citing it), it can and will happen that a statement in Wikipedia is cited FROM ITSELF via an unsourced, but puportedly reputable "mainstream source". I've been concerned about the possibilities of circular sourcing before, and how else to determine the correctness of a source other than itself, but this is a worse problem than I've even thought of before, and it does seem crippling. Disturbing and frightening. 71.128.189.179 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your 06:39, 14 June 2006 edit, where you said "Ah, yes - searching for which edit added a given phrase is a pain, I agree. Someone may have written a tool to ease this, but I haven't come across it yet.".. Any luck in finding such a utility? I've had a think about how it could work. Firstly there could be one tool that works like an extended watchlist, so that it alerts you whenever a certain piece of text disappears or is added to an article (by checking every edit as it happens - possibly too much of a load on the wikipedia servers if everyone started to use it!). Secondly another tool could be used to locate when a piece of text was added or removed by capturing the edit history page, and then parsing it to break it down into a binary tree to find which edit was responsible. For example if there were 32 edits where a change might have happened, first check edit 16, if it's not yet there, check edit 24, if it's there then check edit 20, etc. That would help reduce the load to a minimum. Of course, the ideal solution would be to build in such indexing functionality into the wikimedia software itself, maybe even an interface where you can select a word or group of words in a page, and a little pop-up will be displayed saying when those words were added (this solution would only help find additions however, not deletions). What do you think? Sorry to use your talk page to brainstorm like this...! --Rebroad 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, please, clarify why you deleted the following categories:

1. Category:User ly-1
2. Category:User ly-2
3. Category:User ly-3
4. Category:User ly-4

I think you already know that proficiency in Standard Arabic doesn't entail proficiency in some Arabic dialect. Neither does the proficiency in one dialect means that one can seamlessly understand other dialects. Therefore I think each dialect deserves its own ladder.

On the other hand If the reason for deletion is that there is still no users listed in them. I believe that language ladders should be left there until someone with the appropriate level of proficiency finds them and adds their username to them.

Finally, deleting some of the categories in ranking ladder, really disrupts the whole of it. Leaving only one page in the ranking doesn't really help.

I've spent a considrable time writing those categories for two main reasons:

1. writing them is not straightforward and requires a lot of tweaking (especially when Arabic scripts are in question).
2. works related to countries with small population and modest access to technology need someone to take heed to them. If they are treated as heavy-handedly as other-countries-related projects are, the result would be a wikipedia with very meager coverage of those countries.Hakeem.gadi 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I deleted them because someone tagged them as being empty, and when I looked, they were. But your explanation, the work you put into them, and the fact that the account who tagged them is a shared IP address(and so not particularly contactable), all convince me to reverse the deletion, and I have. Sorry for the bother, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.Hakeem.gadi 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First of all, I'd like to say a big THANK-YOU for helping out at AFC! Sometimes it feels like an abandoned wasteland in there! Secondly, I have a response to your earlier edit summary question of text removal when creating an article. My reading of it is that it is not necessary, but also no prohibitions against it. I only remove copyvio's and attacks, otherwise I just make sure to archive it with the templates. Thanks again!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I misunderstood the comment earlier. There is no need to actually remove the request in its entirety, and might cause potential problems. I recommend you use the ((afc top)) and ((afc b)) templates at the top and bottom of the proposed article, with your reason for declining just above the bottom template. If you accept the article and create it, the method is similar--((afc top|accept)) at the top and ((afc accept))((afc b)) at the bottom. Also, don't forget to inform the user that you created their article! I hope you find this helpful!~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnuala (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. I hope your Wikistress gets better! :) Peace and Wikilove, ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neranei (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I might be able to help you, could you give me some more details as to what the work would entail? Thanks, ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neranei (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help; I'm a bit busy right now, I can help next week, when I have absolutely nothing going on (I'm going away this weekend). Thanks for the invite, I'd be happy to help! Neranei -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neranei (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jesse, I've been a bit busy lately, but am planning on going through a section of the San Jose article shortly; hope that I am useful! Best wishes, Neranei (sorry, my signature doesn't work on your page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neranei (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Which San Jose are you talking about? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neranei (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Thanks for any help! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your interest and support in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Proposition: three "base" Wiki-wide article-naming methods - People, Places and Things.. The thing is, this has drawn little attention - even after being placed on the Village Pump "Wider attention" list - so do you know of any way to draw (many!) more into the debate? If it works, I think it could help Wiki a lot, but some sort of consensus has to be had about this.

Thanks for any suggestions at all, take care,

THEPROMENADER 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks a lot for your boldness - I wouldn't have thought to do as you did (I probably would have just filled up a few talk pages), so thanks a million! I'm tempted to say "let's keep it up", but let's see how this goes first... your renaming has already drawn attention from the "settlement" naming conventions page. Cheers : ) THEPROMENADER 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Your page moves were all reverted because they were considered as contrary to WP:POINT guidelines. I can see the line of thought there, but don't agree that such moves are "disruptive" - they do go against the grain of the tastes of a few, but defy nothing that is set into stone (like the WP:NAME policies). If anything, settlement conventions defy WP:NAME more than anything...

I'm going to look for another way of drawing attention to this - perhaps by leaving messages on other "country" pages. This issue has been monopolised by the same old local players since too long, it seems. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is and was better that I did the moves rather than you. You are identified as the main proponent of the proposal, and taking such bold, POINTy actions would not look right. But I am merely a supporter -- I am not under such constraints. In any case, I think it worked out alright. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, but the consideration of base reason shouldn't change only because of the identity of the proponent of the argument. What has me concerned is that certain administrators have taken a stance on the matter (in reverting your changes) when the WP:NAME naming policy states that any disambiguation - country, province, parentheses, any of these - will do for placenames. The settlement convention states quite clearly in its heading that it is but a guideline "not written in stone" - thus the no-consensus-nor-discussion reverting of your changes itself is worthy of higher attention in my books. Let's not get too gung-ho about this right away, all the same. THEPROMENADER 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on OHKO, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because OHKO is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting OHKO, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fuckwit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fuckwit is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fuckwit, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm aware that you are familiar with the WikiLink game. I recently played for the first time, using the number 6, and eventually lost by ending up in Wiktionary. I clicked through 17 pages throughout the game. Is that good? Oddmartian2 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have an answer to this. Is there a template that I can use that when placed on a page converts into the articles name? for instance if I put ((Page))(an example) it would automatically convert into the name of the article which it's placed on? Does such a thing exist? If not, What javascript would be required to make such a script possible to create such a template? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I should let you know that I've nominated the following redirect you created for deletion: Wikipedia:We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis. Not a very serious issue, I know, but feel free to comment if you have any opinion either way. Terraxos 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 8008135, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author)) to the top of the page. Soxred93 has a boring sig 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect-acronym has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wikipedia:Wikimedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Solumeiras (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:HABS2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of wikisource:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 you noted: "(clarify status of this instruction -- /Add.2 extended it without a expiration date, and I just checked that it's in force in the most recent (2007) index.)" -- where on earth did you find this out and how? my comments Goatchurch (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I have some downtime at work and figured I would read up on some stuff in my field as well as contribute here. I still haven't figured out all the reference templates so thanks for cleaning it up. I might look into Citizendium too. Cheers. Esoxid^t 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on LIGAS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plz see the discussion page of thusharagiri.--Anoopan (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article JOOC, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author)) to the top of JOOC. Guinness (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Oakland university logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello! thank you for the kind note about your edits. although i understand your concern, i'm sorry, but i had to again remove the 'disclaimer', as it doesn't conform to wp:mos guidelines on reference formatting. additionally it is not necessary for that one citation to support everything in the article, particularly since the article is just a stub. what i have done, however, is add a couple other entries that should do a better job of substantiating the claims made. cheers! --emerson7 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the tune closely resembles that of "Little Boxes" is well-known to me. However, I'm not so sure there is a reasonable way to incorporate this fact in the article. You can, of course, edit it yourself, if you have something you think you can say about it. -- BRG (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse, I disagree that the catering company for an airline is relevant enough to be mentioned in its own article, yet alone its own section in the article.. I'll be moving the discussion to Talk:American Airlines as this is the most relevant spot for this discussion. —Cliffb (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as DILF, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on GFY requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Blake⁰¹ 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right to complain about the edit I put into the biography of Holling C. Holling two years ago. I can't imagine what I was thinking, to put things in directly from his corporate bio. Thanks for taking care of it. I hope it is only an isolated example, particularly since I have learned a great deal since my earliest edits (of which that was one). I understand that there are Wikipedia editors who oick up copyrighted text wholesale and paste it into articles, causing no end of headaches. I try to work against that, but I have to admit that Holling C. Holling edit of mine was sloppy and awful. Again, thanks for fixing it. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this as the "closing" administrator. I have placed a notice at the talk page of the article warning against restoration of the material, which is sufficient in many cases without needing to delete the infringement. Thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse, I replied here. Regards, --Flominator (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for my tardiness in responding. Thank you very much for the compliments! There some room for improvement on the Hindenburg page, but still it is nice to be appreciated. Again, thank you, and please have a nice day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'm not quite sure why I did that - you are quite correct that the CSD reason was incorrect. However please also remember that Wikipedia strives for a collegial atmosphere and your brusque and aggressive manner was not needed. A more pleasent note would have achieved the same outcome. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you kind words on my talk - matter done and dusted, and happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a stab at solving the copyvio problem with this entry. See Talk:Great Yarmouth Pleasure Beach/Temp. As far as I could see the only actual copyvio was with the lead which someone had lifted straight off the park's website. The main section on the historic roller coaster was not copied from anywhere as I compiled it. I have also added an amusement park info box and generally tidied up the entry. How does that look to you now? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a problem with an image remover bot. Because the logo is on a talk page it deletes the image and orphans it for seven day deletion. I hope I have stopped that with a bot denial insert, but can we agree the article entry and get it back in the flow in the near future please? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do something to speed this process along? Several bots have removed the image from the temp talk page....which has orphaned the image....which will now be deleted on Wednesday 1 October if the GYPB page isn't reinstated and the image embedded in the new page. Many thanks. When you come across a page where only a couple of sentences are copyvio in an otherwise clean article, isn't there a less draconian and convoluted method of dealing with the situation without creating all this hooha and work? Just a thought. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I will answer my own question. If you had inserted </div> just after the copyvio lead, the remainder of the article would have stayed in place. I have inserted that on the GYPB page after your copyvio box and linked the image to its correct page, which stops the image being orphaned and deleted......where there is a will, there is usually a way...hehe 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on @$$ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated @$$, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@$$. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[from commons] I noticed you blanked a nonsense page Diana dukhovna. This was good, but it'd be better to add the ((speedy)) tag (with a reason, like "vandalism/newbie test") so a admin/janitor can find it and clean it up. It's also good to check the user's contribs for any other problems; in this case, I found another nonsense page e had created. Thanks for your work, in any case. 75.214.74.91 (really, w:User:JesseW/not logged in) 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse! You're of course right! When I see that someone has created a nonsense page, I usually don't do anything because I know a good will admin ( :-) ) will also anyhow check the new anonymous creations and delete them if needed. In this particular case, I decided to exceptionally blank it because it was offensive to someone (a school mate?) but I've should have indeed mark it clearly as Speedy. Thanks and have a nice evening! Vonvon (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

joelfightsback.com appreciates your work in organizing the court documents into a timeline. Thanks so much.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm delighted you all noticed. Your comment encouraged me to get it more in shape. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on DILLIGAF? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dave1185 (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for your notification at freedomdefined.org, taken care of. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a look at the discussion at the administrator's noticeboard discussion regarding Lukas zpira when you get a chance, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 13:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Blogpimping requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. magnius (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GLAG, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Neologism with no evidence of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Malcolma (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/categories, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject California/categories and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject California/categories during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Filipino singers by gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into another category. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse, thanks for your welcome and cleanup of my requested dels, today at CCWiki. I tried to thank you there, only to find out I was blocked. Block reason: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Laura jazmín gulí". Block target: 127.0.0.1 Block id: #1365 Then it says that my current IP is 127.0.0.1. That's an unusual IP, so I went and checked my router's IP and it is 89.180.59.114. Can you please check what's going on there? Hamilton Abreu (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erps, sorry about that. I'm not sure why it's missidentifying your IP as 127.0.0.1 (i.e. localhost), but I've removed the autoblock, and changed my block on the spammer to avoid it doing so again. Hope it wasn't too disruptive to your work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jesse, blocked again, by Akozak. Block reason: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "G ren cruex". Block target: 127.0.0.1. Block id. #1376. I contact you here, because over there there's nothing I can edit. Hamilton Abreu (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, this shouldn't be happening. It appears that it's fixed itself this time, but I'll drop an email to the folks running things, 'cause fixing the underlying problem is beyond my abilities. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a crack at recreating this page and was wondering if you could userfy the prod-deleted version for me. I'd be very grateful. Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably right here. OlYeller^Talktome 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dead external links/300, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dead external links/300 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Dead external links/300 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. File:A Xenomorph.jpg is on my watchlist, and though I'm uninvolved in the deletion/recreation (as I'm not an admin) I've been watching the back-&-forth and I have to ask: Do off-Wiki usages count? Your recreation is based on the fact that the file is linked externally at http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/moray_eels_attack_with_second_pair_of_alien-style_jaws.php, however as far as I know we don't consider off-wiki links when deleting content from Wikipedia. There are likely hundreds or more links floating around the web to Wikipedia articles/files/etc. that have been deleted over the years. It's not our job to make sure other websites' links are working, it's theirs. This is especially true since this is a non-free image; we generally do not host non-free content that is not used in our own articles. CSD F5 says that if a non-free file is not used in any Wikipedia articles, it should be deleted. That another website may link to the image does not, I believe, preclude its deletion, unless you can point me to some policy or guideline that says otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly object to deleting the file (as you said, it's a non-free file unused in our articles, afaik), I object to deleting the redirect, since we do create (and not delete) redirects because they are likely to be used off-wiki. And I most particularly object to folks deleting the redirect without even reading the deletion log, or responding to the issues mentioned therein. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm using a database report that checks for uses of a file redirect. If there are no uses of it, then I run a script for the list of files in the report, and they are deleted. Hence why I didn't see the deletion log as typically such a deletion would be uncontroversial and G6 material.

Also, that file doesn't really seem to be a proper redirect - a redirect is one that doesn't have an image on the page, just the [redirect] - is there a reason for this - i.e. can you just delete the page + recreate with an appropriate redirect?

I hope this helps! :)

The Helpful One 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, and letting me know about the file on the redirect page -- that is odd, and I've now deleted it. I'm a still a bit confused by the database report you are talking about -- there doesn't seem to be a CSD for deleting file redirects without internal use, and in fact, I suspect many others exist for good reasons. Also, the basic rule "redirects are cheap" would suggest not deleting them unnecessarily. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JesseW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hi! I'd like to help you, if you need any help, upgrading the CreativeCommons wiki. Feel free to email me at sumanah@wikimedia.org about this. Sumanah (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JesseW,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JesseW,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)

Wikipedia's list of user scripts is in bad shape, in that it is disorganized and contains many non-working, unmaintained, or thoroughly obsolete entries. Cleanup has been on the to-do list since 2007, but little progress has been made. Instead, the whole list is now set to be deprecated on 1 May 2012, to be replaced with a new list. This draft list has been up for about a month, and in that time I've been soliciting script users and authors to come add scripts they know to be working and relevant.

If you know of scripts that you would like to survive this deprecation (and are confirmed working and relevant), you're welcome to add them to the new list. Note that the old list will be retained and linked from the main list, so there is no real deadline. Thanks for your help. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:56, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Quarterly Review of Film and Video cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday, March 9 - Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited!

Come celebrate Women's History Month at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the Fembot, in collaboration with ASOU Women's Center, the Center for the Study of Women in Society, the School of Journalism and Communication, and the UO Libraries. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, JesseW. Regarding this edit, I had meant to use the [[en:Winthrop University]] syntax, since that creates a link to Winthrop University on the left-hand toolbox under the "In Wikipedia" section. As I understand it, Wikidata is using (or will be using) this standardized interlinking information to better join the various projects together. It's confusing that there are currently many different ways to link Commons categories and Wikipedia articles together, but it seems to me that [[en:ARTICLENAME]] (or [[de:ARTICLENAME]] for German, etc.) is the developing standard. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I wasn't sure if interwiki links were the recommended way or not. Thanks for explaining. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see your Commons talk page for a comment. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your remarks on my talk page. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juggling Janitor,

I read this 2006 essay that tops your user page, which was interesting to me since I've been contributing to Wikipedia heavily since the summer of 2009, which seems like a very long time to me. Four years and well over 20,000 edits. I could have earned a bachelor's degree in that time, but don't need a second one. And he stopped contributing three years before. So, a lot has changed. It is interesting to me, as an experienced editor in 2013, to read apocolyptic predictions from someone who gave up on the project three years before I started.

I have read a lot of opinion pieces over the years claiming that Wikipedia is going to hell in a hand basket. Though most point out some valid issues, their pessimistic conclusions strike me as false.

I am not a physicist though I find physics interesting. I haven't evaluated our articles on the Theory of Relativity, but have serious doubts that the input of cranks and kooks are welcomed in these articles in 2013. Certainly, POV pushers continue their campaigns and there are a variety of highly contentious topic areas where the battles are ongoing, but my observation is that this affects a very small percentage of high visibility, important articles.

My optimism for this project is very much alive. I think that we have millions of decent articles, millions more that need work, and millions more to write. It would be wonderful if your friend would reconsider after seven years, and return to the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Hillman isn't a friend of mine -- I just came across his essay and found it persuasive. It is quite strange and neat to be talking to someone who's been active for 4 years, and is still hopeful, from my perspective as someone who was first active on WP a decade ago (yes, literally), and who hasn't been that active recently. My opinions are somewhat more nuanced than apocolyptic -- as I said, I agree that the absolute number of excellent articles is still growing -- it's more that WP is now far more than sufficiently large and well known to be a mirror of the problems, challenges (and excellences) of the world, rather than a isolated collection of encyclopedia-geeks as it was in the past. I may write more later. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand why article was deleted. I am searching for reliable sources for that federation

Sulaimandaud (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I hope you find some. It's good to have such articles, once they have sufficient sources. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quarterly Review of Film and Video is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarterly Review of Film and Video until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Psychonaut (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry this response comes very late. I don't log into Wikipedia much anymore.

I honestly don't recall where I saw that quote. I was in high school in 2010, so I suspect that it was on a motivational poster in one of my teacher's classrooms, or it just popped up somewhere on the internet, and I didn't think to try to cite it. I have no idea when or even if MLK would have said it. Sorry! --=) khfan93 (t) (c) 10:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I ended up actually successfully tracking it back to a Usenet post from 15 Jan 2006, where it is presented as original text, not a quote at all. You can see the details here, on Wikiquote. You may want to update your user page. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

After moving from Los Angeles County to Kern County to San Luis Obispo County, I am finally realizing that there is life in California outside of L.A. and San Francisco, where I lived and grew up. Oh, I have also lived in San Diego, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Yolo and Sacramento counties, and I earned my undergraduate degree in Riverside County. I am trying to breathe life into the Southern California Task Force, and I hope you will join me. Could you visit our list of participants at the other end of this link and update your description of what you are interested in doing for us, assuming that you still want to be in the mix, that is.

In recompense, I will buy you a drink during the Wikipedia Welcome Week I am planning for Morro Bay on the Central Coast in July. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BTTT. Since you had some involvement with the BTTT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on AFAIH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Schuddeboomw (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JesseW. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JesseW.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JesseW. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JesseW. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JesseW. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of King County Metro facilities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King County Metro facilities until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nightfury 09:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

There's a watchlist, of all the pages in the portal namespace, for viewing Related changes.

And more.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ((ping)) me. Thank you. -TT

Hello, JesseW. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

What is this? Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro. What you can do! Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects Expand articles listed here Improve science articles Sign the guestbook or place ((User WikiProject Science)) on your user page. Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here

Similar events Pi day DNA day Evolution Day Yuri's Night Square Root Day See also Observances about science Observances in October

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Interior-HABS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wikiacc (¶) 23:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 53x. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#53x until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sending you this note because you need to update your signature. You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Your signature does not link to your account. This is usually because your account has been renamed.

To fix your signature, you need to find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences and either blank it or change the link to your current account name. More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. mw:New requirements for user signatures/Help#Wrong user links. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 833r. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#833r until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect JGIYN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#JGIYN until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LYL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 23#LYL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on LMBO requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ... discospinster _talk 00:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JesseW,

Please do not delete empty maintenance categories, like Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 20 April 2022, before the date has passed. User:DumbBOT creates maintenance categories a few days ahead so that they will be available for use in the coming week. So, in this case, Wikipedia files with the same name that are found on April 20th will be put in this category on April 20th to be dealt with later. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Sorry about that, I failed to look carefully enough at the dates. Interestingly, it looks like the categories are also being monitored and re-created by a different bot, User:Hazard-Bot, so it fixed my mistake already. But I appreciate the heads up! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect L@@K and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#L@@K until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, bot. :-) I've now made some more contributions, and no longer meet the criteria. I'm mainly active at Wikisource (and Wikidata), but prefer to still retain my permissions here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HI! I am Contributor175, I want advise about my recently denied request Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Contributor008, I want to know that why this request was denied by User Schwede66 because only for wrong Capitalization in the request only. By mistake when I was doing a Mobile Edit, My mobile done auto capitalization of some words. You can see my this Mobile Edit and one more thing that how is my not archived talk page is related to the articles should remain under review by other editors, As he said. (Note - I never do incorrect use of capitalisations in Articles.)

So, I want to get an advise that what I have to do for being a candidate for Autopatrolled and Can I become an Autopatrolled User? Can you make me Autopatrolled?

Contributor008 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have any advice to give you, except that autopatrolled is not really something that it makes much sense to bother asking for yourself -- the purpose of it is to make it easier on new page reviewers by filtering out pages created by people they (the new page reviewers) collectively see as not necessary to review. If/when the community of new page reviewers comes to that consensus about your new pages, one of them will nominate you; in any case, it should make no difference to you or your edits. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Zerbu ^Talk 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]